Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Willie L. CASPER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Douglas B. ROBELEN, Clerk of Court; John Doe (1); John Doe (2), Defendants - Appellees, Alan P. Krasnoff, Clerk of Court, Defendant.
Willie Lee Casper, III, appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Casper's amended complaint, in essence, alleged denial of access to courts. However, Casper could not show an injury for any purported denial of access, because the issues he sought to pursue had already been raised and rejected in prior actions. To the extent that Casper sought to challenge the Supreme Court of Virginia's denial of his appeal of the circuit court's order denying his 2019 motion to vacate, we conclude that the district court correctly held that such a claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine. See Thana v. Bd. of License Comm'rs, 827 F.3d 314, 318-19 (4th Cir. 2016) (explaining that doctrine provides “that lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.2 Casper v. Robelen, No. 1:20-cv-00802-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 24, 2020 & entered Oct. 27, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
FOOTNOTES
1. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).
2. We decline to consider claims that Casper raises for the first time on appeal. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016).
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-7672
Decided: March 29, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)